Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coefficient of Consolidatiom and Index Properties PDF
Coefficient of Consolidatiom and Index Properties PDF
5
Paper ID GTJ10784
Available online at: www.astm.org
ABSTRACT: Knowledge of the rate at which the compression of the soil layer takes place is essential from design considerations. This can
be achieved by determining the value of the coefficient of consolidation, cv . To obtain cv , it is essential to conduct a routine one-dimensional
consolidation test. With the obtained time-compression data, and using any one of the several available curve-fitting procedures, cv can be evaluated.
This is a time-consuming process. Also, the fact that many curve-fitting procedures are available in the literature suggests that none of them are
completely satisfactory in evaluating cv and, hence, the large variation in the evaluated values by different procedures. Hence, it is desirable to predict
the value of cv by any correlation equation relating with some simple index property. This will be quite satisfactory, especially so for preliminary
assessment purposes. From the present experimental study on remolded soils, it is found that cv has a better correlation with the shrinkage index,
which is the difference between liquid limit and shrinkage limit.
Introduction equation:
Founding of any structure on a compressible soil layer leads to its
9.09 × 10−7 (1.192 + ACT −1 )6.993 (4.135IL + 1)4.29
settlement. The amount of settlement is related to the compression cv = (1)
index, Cc , or coefficient of volume change, mv . Knowledge of the Ip (2.03IL + 1.192 + ACT −1 )7.993
rate at which the compression of the soil layer takes place is essential
from design considerations. This parameter assumes importance in Where
the preloading technique for ground improvement. This can be ACT = Activity
achieved by determining the value of coefficient of consolidation, IL = Liquidity index
cv . To obtain cv , a routine one-dimensional consolidation test is IP = Plasticity index
usually performed. With the obtained time-compression data, and
using any one of the several available curve-fitting procedures, cv It can be observed from Eq 1 that cv is inversely proportional to
can be evaluated. It may be seen from the literature (e.g., Olson the plasticity index.
1986; Sridharan and Prakash 1995) that the suitability of any curve Raju et al. (1995) proposed an equation to predict cv (in cm2 /s)
fitting procedure depends upon the soil type. Since many factors for a normally consolidated clay in terms of the void ratio at the
affect cv , the experimental behavior of soil in the one-dimensional liquid limit (eL ) and the in situ effective overburden pressure, σv
consolidation test does not completely match with the theoretical (kPa), given as:
relationship of consolidation as obtained by Terzaghi’s equation,
1 + eL (1.23 − 0.276 log σv ) 1
which is made use of in the curve fitting procedures. In view of the cv = × (0.353) × 10−3 (2)
complexity of obtaining cv from a consolidation test, any attempt eL σv
to obtain the same from the correlation with the index properties
for preliminary design will be most welcome. The limitation of Eq 2 is that it is from a limited study with
four soils (liquid limit 50–106 % and plastic limit 27–47 %), and
liquid limit is the only soil parameter considered. Soils can have the
Prediction of Coefficient of Consolidation—State of the Art same liquid limit but a different plastic limit. Their behavior will
Many engineering properties are correlated with the index prop- be entirely different. Hence, the generalization is questionable.
erties. Similarly, efforts, though limited, have been made in the Lambe and Whitman (1979) have given a typical range of values
past to predict coefficient of consolidation (Carrier 1985; Raju of coefficient of consolidation for soils of varying liquid limits as
et al. 1995). shown in Table 1.
It appears that Carrier (1985) made an early attempt to predict Plasticity properties of the soils play a vital role in controlling
coefficient of consolidation, cv (in m2 /s) as given by the following the consolidation characteristics. Recently, Sridharan and Nagaraj
(2000) have brought the role of plasticity properties in controlling
the compressibility characteristics. They have shown that shrinkage
Received August 27, 2001; accepted for publication March 12, 2004; pub- index (liquid limit—shrinkage limit) has a better correlation with
lished August 25, 2004. compressibility characteristics than the plasticity index or liquid
1 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India. limit of soils. In this paper, an attempt has been made to find which
2 Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, BMS College of Engi- of the index properties/indices correlate better with coefficient of
neering, Bangalore, India. consolidation.
Copyright by
Copyright ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Jan 17 04:38:51 EST 2012
C 2004 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
TABLE 1—Typical values for Coefficient of Consolidation. been tested for their physical properties according to ASTM stan-
dards and the results reported in Table 2.
Liquid Lower Limit for Undisturbed Virgin Upper Limit The specific gravity was determined using a pycnometer (stop-
Limit Recompression (m2 /s) Compression (m2 /s) Remolded (m2 /s)
pered bottle having a capacity of 50 mL) as specified by the ASTM
30 3.5 × 10−6 5 × 10−7 1.2 × 10−7 Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils (D 854-92,
60 3.5 × 10−7 1 × 10−7 3 × 10−8 1995). The specific gravity values are an average of three tests;
100 4 × 10−8 2 × 10−8 1 × 10−8 individual determinations differed from the mean by less than 0.01.
The liquid limit of soils was determined by the cone penetrometer
method as specified by BS: 1377-part 2, 1990. The liquid limit tests
Coefficient of consolidation cv (in m2 /s) can be expressed as: were carried out to obtain a minimum of five points for plotting the
flow curve. The consistency of the soil specimens was adjusted
k
cv = (3) such that the cone penetration ranged between 15 and 25 mm. The
mv γ w plastic limit of the soil specimens was determined by the rolling
Where thread method as outlined in the ASTM Standard Test Method for
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (D 4318-
k = hydraulic conductivity (m/s) 93, 1995). The shrinkage limit of soil specimens was determined
mv = coefficient of volume change (m2 /kN) according to ASTM Test Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils
γw = unit weight of pore fluid (kN/m3 ) by the Mercury Method (D427-83, 1995). While placing the wet
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) indicated that, with decreasing void soil at its liquid limit water content into the shrinkage dish, care
ratio (i.e., with increasing effective vertical consolidation pressure, was taken to expel entrapped air. First allowing the soil to air dry
σv ) both k and mv decrease rapidly so that the ratio (k/mv ) and, under controlled conditions, and then oven drying to a constant
hence, cv , is fairly constant over a wide range of effective vertical mass prevented cracking due to fast drying. The shrinkage lim-
consolidation pressures. Though this is the general understanding its reported are the average of three determinations; the variation
about the variation of cv with pressure, recent findings of Robinson between individual determinations was less than 0.5 %.
and Allam (1998) have shown that cv − σv relationship is affected Grain-size analysis was done according to ASTM Test Method
by clay mineralogy and, hence, the soil type. This aspect has been for Particle Size Analysis of Soils (D 422-63, 1995) by wet sieving
studied in detail in this paper. of 100 g of dry soil using a 75-µm sieve. The portion retained on the
75-µm sieve was oven dried and sieved using sieves of 300, 212,
and 150-µm sizes. The soil passing through 75-µm was collected
Materials and Methods carefully and air-dried, and the grain-size distribution analysis was
performed by the hydrometer method. The results are presented in
Materials
Table 1.
Ten soils, including a number of natural soils along with com- The mineralogical analysis of the soils was performed using
mercially available kaolinite, covering a wide range of liquid limits an X-ray diffractometer with Cu-kα radiation. The principal clay
(37 % ≤ wL ≤ 74 %), were selected for the present study and have minerals present in the soils are given in Table 1.
1 Red Earth-1 2.70 37.0 18.0 14.7 19.0 22.3 0.99 0.39 35.5 38.5 26.0 kaolinite,
montmorillonite,
muscovite, quartz
2 Silty soil-1 2.65 39.0 29.5 27.4 9.5 11.6 1.03 0.73 36.5 58.5 5.0 Illite, quartz
3 Kaolinite-1 2.65 48.0 35.6 39.0 12.4 9.0 1.27 1.03 16.0 74.5 9.5 kaolinite, quartz
4 Red Earth-2 2.70 48.0 23.2 15.5 24.8 32.5 1.29 0.42 8.0 57.0 35.0 kaolinite,
montmorillonite,
muscovite,quartz
5 Kaolinite-2 2.64 55.0 31.4 33.1 23.6 21.9 1.45 0.87 1.0 67.0 32.0 kaolinite, quartz
6 Cochin clay 2.61 56.4 38.1 21.0 18.3 35.4 1.47 0.55 18.0 64.5 17.5 Illite
7 Brown soil-1 2.66 58.5 32.1 13.5 26.4 45.0 1.56 0.36 19.5 42.5 35.0 Montmorillonite,
kaolinite muscovite,
quartz
8 Kaolinite-3 2.65 58.7 45.2 46.4 13.5 12.3 1.56 1.23 0.0 88.5 11.5 kaolinite, quartz
9 Illitic soil 2.58 73.4 51.9 39.0 21.5 34.4 1.89 1.01 0.9 71.6 27.5 Illite, kaolinite, quartz
10 B C soil-1 2.70 73.5 35.6 11.9 37.9 61.6 1.98 0.32 13.0 35.5 51.5 Montmorillonite, quartz
Note:∗
GS = Specific gravity
wL = Liquid limit
wP = Plastic limit
wS = Shrinkage limit
IP = Plasticity index
IS = hrinkage index
eL = Void ratio at liquid limit
eS = Void ratio at shrinkage limit
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Jan 17 04:38:51 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
SRIDHARAN AND NAGARAJ ON REMOLDED SOILS 3
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Jan 17 04:38:51 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Jan 17 04:38:51 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
SRIDHARAN AND NAGARAJ ON REMOLDED SOILS 5
FIG. 5—Relationship between the coefficient of consolidation and the FIG. 6—Relationship between the coefficient of consolidation and the
liquid limit for various effective vertical consolidation pressures. plasticity index for various effective vertical consolidation pressures.
governed by mechanical factors, and the opposite behavior for soils ior is governed mainly by mechanical forces, as the consolidation
whose compressibility behavior is controlled by physico-chemical pressure increases, the gravitational forces increase and will over-
factors. ride the little repulsive pressure at the particle level in retarding the
It is well known that the coefficient of consolidation is a pa- compression of soil, and hence, the increase in the rate of compres-
rameter that indicates the rate of compression of a saturated soil sion of the soil, i.e., an increase in cv with pressure. This explains
undergoing compression, which in turn directly depends on the hy- the varying trends of cv versus σv for soils with different plasticity
draulic conductivity of the soil medium undergoing compression properties.
(refer to Eq 3). The authors feel that for a soil that is more plastic as The following paragraphs discuss which index parameter corre-
indicated by higher plasticity index or shrinkage index, hydraulic lates better with cv . Figures 4a and b show the variation of cv with
conductivity of the soil at any stress level will be less as compared liquid limit and plasticity index, respectively, for a pressure incre-
to a soil that is less plastic. The reason being that the thickness ment of 50–100 kPa. Similarly, Figs. 4c and d show the variations
of diffuse double layer (ddl) will be relatively larger for a highly of cv with shrinkage index for pressure increment of 50–100 kPa
plastic soil as compared to a less plastic soil. The thicker the ddl, and 100–200 kPa, respectively. It can be observed from Fig. 4a
the greater the reduction in the effective pore size for flow, and that scatter is more in cv values with the liquid limit and, therefore,
hence, reduction in the hydraulic conductivity of soil. The authors correlation is poor. Further, from Fig. 4b, it is clear that a better
feel that this may be the reason for cv values being relatively higher correlation exists between cv and the plasticity index, as compared
for less plastic soils than for more plastic soils, though their liquid to cv versus the liquid limit. Lastly, from Figs. 4c and d, it is evident
limit is nearly the same. that the correlation between cv and shrinkage index is better either
The authors also feel that as the effective consolidation pressure than plasticity index or liquid limit. Similar behavior is observed
for a normally consolidated soil increases, the soil particles become for all pressure ranges. Further, to propose a correlation equation
more oriented and also come close to each other. As a consequence, for predicting cv , the results of variation of cv with effective verti-
for more plastic soils, the diffuse double layer repulsive forces mo- cal consolidation pressure is plotted against the index parameters
bilize, acting against the external loading, and hence, offer more namely, the liquid limit, the plasticity index, and shrinkage index,
resistance to compression (both rate and amount). This may be the as shown in Figs. 5, 6, and 7, respectively. From these figures, it
reason for the decreasing trend of cv versus σv for more plastic is clear that the scatter is the least in the case of shrinkage index
soils. In the case of less plastic soils whose compressibility behav- (Fig. 7), and the correlation is better with a correlation coefficient,
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Jan 17 04:38:51 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Conclusions
In this paper an attempt has been made to explain more logically
the variations in the values of cv and also the varying trends of
cv versus the effective vertical consolidation pressure for soils with
different plasticity properties, though the liquid limit of the soils are
nearly the same. The inferences and conclusions drawn are based
on results obtained from remolded soils. They need to be verified
for undisturbed and overconsolidated soils. Based on the results, a
better correlation equation has been proposed to predict cv in terms
of shrinkage index. However, in the absence of shrinkage limit
data, which is normally not determined in routine testing of soils
as compared to plastic limit, the correlation between coefficient of
consolidation and plasticity index, although less strong, can be used
for prediction purposes.
References
Bowles, J. E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York, pp. 66–68.
Carrier, W. D., III, 1985, “Consolidation Parameters Derived
From Index Tests,” Geotechnique, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 211–
213.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V., 1979, Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Leonards, G. A. and Ramiah, B. K., 1959, “Time Effects in the
Consolidation of Clays,” Symposium on Time Rates of Loading
in Soil Testing, ASTM STP 254, pp. 116–130.
Olson, R. E., 1986, “State of Art: Consolidation Testing, Consoli-
dation of Soils, Testing and Evaluation,” ASTM STP 892, R. N.
Yong and F. C. Townsend, Eds., pp. 7–70.
Raju Narasimha, P. S. R., Pandian, N. S., and Nagaraj, T. S.,
FIG. 7—Relationship between the coefficient of consolidation and the 1995, “Analysis and Estimation of Coefficient of Consolida-
shrinkage index for various effective vertical consolidation pressures.
tion,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 252–
258.
r = 0.94, and the equation is given as: Robinson, R. G. and Allam, M. M., 1998, “Effect of Clay Mineral-
3 ogy on Coefficient of Consolidation,” Clays and Clay Minerals,
cv = (4) Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 596–600.
100 (IS )3.54
Sridharan, A., Murthy, N. S., and Prakash, K., 1987, “Rectangular
Where, cv = coefficient of consolidation in m2 /s. Hyperbola Method of Consolidation Analysis,” Geotechnique,
Earlier, Carrier (1985) in his empirical study has shown that the Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 355–368.
plasticity index controls cv , and they are inversely related. From the Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K., 1995, “Critical Appraisal of Labo-
present study, it has become clear that shrinkage index is a better ratory Determination of cv ,” International Symposium on Com-
correlative parameter than the plasticity index in predicting cv as pression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils, Hiroshima, Japan,
given by Eq 4. Balkema Publishers, pp. 567–572.
It can be mentioned here that though coefficient of consolidation Sridharan, A. and Nagaraj, H. B., 2000, “Compressibility Be-
has a better correlation with shrinkage index than plasticity index, haviour of Remoulded, Fine-Grained Soils and Correlation with
in the absence of shrinkage limit data, which is normally not deter- Index Properties,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37,
mined in routine testing of soils as compared to plastic limit, the No. 2, pp. 712–722.
correlation between cv and plasticity index, although less strong, Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, Soil Mechanics in Engineering
can be used for prediction purposes. Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Jan 17 04:38:51 EST 2012
Downloaded/printed by
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.